Another View: Impartial review of deadly Libya attack needed quickly

Libyan soldiers and civilians raid a compound that housed Ansar al-Shariah fighters, members of an Islamic extremist group who are the primary suspects in the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Multiple Islamic extremist groups in Libya have ties to al-Qaeda, the terrorist group once led by Osama bin Laden. Ansar al-Shariah fighters and others continue to terrorize Libya's cities.

Cut through the politics of Wednesday's congressional hearing into the attack that killed four Americans in Libya, and one conclusion is inescapable: The State Department underestimated the danger.

Whether it could have stopped the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, as Republican committee members tried to establish, is a more dubious conclusion. But it certainly missed signs of escalating violence against Westerners, and it denied a plea from within its own ranks to beef up security.

In a cable July 9 from Tripoli, State Department security officer Eric Nordstrom asked his bosses to continue temporary security support in Libya for an additional 60 days, citing unpredictable conditions, frequent clashes in major cities and an upcoming election that might spark more violence. Ambassador Stevens signed the request.

Nordstrom told the committee that he was so frustrated with State Department rejections that he believed he would not get resources until "the aftermath of an incident."

Administration explanations point to a lack of awareness or worse:

---The State Department raised the danger pay for diplomats in Libya days before turning down Nordstrom's request.

---It let a special security force on loan from the military leave Libya.

---Most oddly, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb, who's in charge of diplomatic security around the world, told the committee, "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi." Given what happened, that's a breathtaking assertion, particularly in the wake of the administration's baffling five-day insistence -- since abandoned -- that the attack was the product of a protest over an anti-Muslim video.

The State Department underrated the threat, but the evidence falls far short of proving claims that the Obama administration could have prevented the deadly attack.

Even if warnings had been heeded and the requested security personnel had been added in Benghazi, it's still a reach to assume that they could have fought off such a lethal attack.

And that's allowing for the benefit of hindsight. In real time, Stevens thought Benghazi safe enough to visit on the anniversary of 9/11, and he opposed turning U.S. diplomatic posts into armed camps.

What's needed quickly is an impartial review that leads to appropriate security at all U.S. facilities abroad.

At the moment, Republicans are sniping and the Democrat administration is stonewalling.

---USA Today

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Another View: Impartial review of deadly Libya attack needed quickly

Cut through the politics of Wednesday's congressional hearing into the attack that killed four Americans in Libya, and one conclusion is inescapable: The State Department underestimated the danger.